🚀 go-pugleaf

%% David Freeman <free779@wpi.edu> writes:

  df> There are, if I remember correctly, two versions of GCC, internal
  df> and GPL.  The internal version is sold to commercial companies for
  df> money, and Cygnus makes money.  The GPL version is the one we use.
  df> I've never worked on GCC, but it may be possible that you do have
  df> to agree to allow Cygnus to use your changes and modifications.

This can't be true.  The FSF holds copyright to GCC, and thus _only_ the
FSF has the right to make licensing changes, including selling a version
under different licensing.  There's absolutely no way the Cygnus can
take FSF-copyrighted code and provide it to anyone under any license
other than the GPL--the FSF would have to give permission to do it.
They won't, of course.

Of course, Cygnus can sell GCC.  Anyone can sell GCC.  There's no
restriction in the GPL about anyone selling anything: this is a common
misunderstanding.  Sell GCC for as much as you like.  _BUT_ you must
follow the terms of the GPL when you do, which says you have to make
available full source code and you can't prevent the person you sold it
to from redistributing it for as much or as little money as they
like--they get it under the terms of the GPL too of course.

  >> whose compiler code generator etc. by necessity embody a rather full
  >> description of the PS2 CPU architecture.

  >> However Sony almost certainly distribute the Cygnus GCC kit with an NDA
  >> that forbids revealing to anyone any detail of the PS2 CPU,

It would depend on the details.  Do we _know_ Sony does this?  How was
the NDA'd software provided to them?  If it's a separate executable,
written entirely by Cygnus and copyright by them, they can provide it
under any license they like, even if it's an integral part of a GCC
toolkit (that is, the program by itself might be fairly useless without
the GCC frontend but it's still considered "mere aggregation" as long as
it's a separate program).

I didn't make these rules, so don't argue with me about whether they
make sense; this is what the FSF and RMS have said about other, similar
situations in the past.

Anyway, even if it's GPL'd it's perfectly within Cygnus' rights to
provide it only to those that they want to, and for whatever price they
want.  If it's GPL'd and Sony is distributing it but not following the
terms of the GPL, then Sony is in violation, but not Cygnus.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <psmith@gnu.org>          Find some GNU make tips at:
 http://www.gnu.org                      http://www.ultranet.com/~pauld/gmake/
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist